People Dynamics - November/December 2019 by People Dynamics

WWW.IPM.CO.ZA NOV-DEC 2019 VOL42 NO.9

LABOUR & LEGALESE

THE NEW WORKPLACE WELLBEING MEASURE

TRAP

Job

HIT

ABUSE?

What Sabotages Your Plans?

2020

GOALS!

IPMACE2019

AT THE PLATINUM KINGDOM J O U R N A L

O F

T H E

I N S T I T U T E

O F

P E O P L E

M A N A G E M E N T

APPLY TO UNISA FOR 2020 Master’s & Doctoral Degrees Dates: 10 September - 8 November 2019 (some exceptions apply)

Deﬁne tomorrow.

university of south africa

CONTENTS Workplace Transformation

Labour Law Trends

Labour Relations

Employment Relations

Saving Jobs or Saving Face? The Employer-Employee Tug-Of-War in a Struggling Economy

Can Employees be Dismissed for Refusing to Accept New Employment T&C’s?

When Legalese Ruins Workplace Justice

Respecting Employees’ Rights in Disciplinary Hearings and Avoiding Unfair Dismissals

Economic Development Hands off, I need my job!

Leadership

Fearless Leaders

Convention Round up

Personal Effectiveness

Employee Wellness

Putting a Finger on Fearless Leadership

Putting a Face to Fearless Leadership

IPMACE19 Highlights

Hit the 2020 Ground Running: Turn Goals to Plans and Plans to Achievements

What Sabotages Your Plans?

Successful Management of Employee Wellbeing

Rests on a Clear Understanding and Appropriate Measurement of both the Hedonic and Eudaimonic experience in the Workplace OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE IPM

Workplace Transformation

SAVING JOBS OR SAVING FACE? The Employer-employee tug-of-war in a Struggling Economy PEOPLE DYNAMICS | November - December 2019

Workplace Transformation

A severe lack of trust is at the heart of employee resistance for organisational re-engineering efforts when difficult times bring businesses to their knees.

ack of trust becomes the reason for further energy- and resourcewastage as parties make accusations, counter-accusations and hollow arguments at all the country’s different courts. Employers often argue that Labour representatives are either ignorant or insolent when the unions fight not only to keep workers in jobs, but to get them above-inflation increases. Unions, on the other hand, believe they are far from ignorant. Their actions are to demand what is fair for workers after the executives have squandered their stewardship and run operations aground. In their (unions’) fight for what many judge as unreasonable wageincrease demand, given the unfavourable economic climate, labour representatives in their own way, are meting out justice, which no commission, court, authority and political leader has so far done for the country. They are ‘punishing bad management’. Audaciously and eloquently, union officials claim astute awareness, understanding and competence in the industries they represent, and will go as far as telling companies what should have been done differently and, going forward, how to run operations for sustainability and of course, continued employment. In the specific parastatals that have recently been trying to off-load ‘non-viable’ human resources, the unions may well have a point in blaming management or leadership for the misfortunes. The amount of corruption unearthed through some of the commissions South Africa has been holding can, understandably, embitter employees who feel sacrificed at the altar of democratic BEE management gone wrong. Having said that, if employees had been cashing cheques for salaries that could not be justified, given the input and output they had in those positions, the very employees had been complicit to the bad management (and corruption) they are now claiming. Surely, accepting a job and a salary at a certain level makes you the author of your own fortunes. Whether directly or through your eloquent union officials you can observe, challenge, propose, and collectively motivate - even fight for better operations. If no one listens despite fervent efforts, you can summon the masses, as the masses have now assembled to fight your war. Entertaining comfortable jobs through the years while also paying commission to unions begs the question: “why didn’t employees use their now flexed muscle to fight bad management and corruption; to grow the value of service to government customers - enough to win the parastatals more paying users or motivate for higher rates commensurate with superior, innovative service?” Indeed, why didn’t employees (and unions) push to keep operations competitive?” Perhaps it is more difficult to figure out the economic and sovereign pride issues of the country, so, taking a detour to the private sector we ask: what makes employees complacent about ascertaining the true wealth and health of the business until retrenchment bells ring? Why is it that where businesses try to turn their fortunes around by

reconfiguring roles and job content of its employees, the very workers at the risk of being totally out of a job - should the company opt for retrenchments, refuse the reconfigurations? Why is it that instead of stretching themselves to move the company forward, they become uncooperative and insist on keeping the old job terms that have become irrelevant or insufficient? Why do they want to hold on to the old terms when the environment has been disrupted, calling for new job content and terms? Could it be because there is also suspicion that workers are being taken for a ride – that the companies are being manipulative - wanting to overwork existing staff and save on new hires? Do the workers and representatives not trust that the life of the company or demand of the product/service is waning and both top-line earnings and bottom-lines have shrunk? Is it because companies are cagey about their books (the true status), and won’t share with employees the critical stuff like SWOT analyses and strategic outlook for the business, as a matter of course? What and who does such “confidentiality policy” serve in the long run? One economic analyst says: “this us-and-them high walling was common in pre-democracy and pre global-competition times. Huge corporates with humongous margins paid workers pittance (as a percentage of profits), so, workers just had to pull off a massive strike and, voila, double-digit wage increases would materialise!” Are we saying that profit margins have since shrunk? Duh! Are we saying that strikes simply drive corporates out of business (faster) when they cave in to exorbitant, unaffordable wage increase demands? Maybe… Are we calling for more inclusive and consultative strategic planning by all organisations – public and private (to include workers’ and/or other key stakeholder representatives)? Certainly… Are we calling for more transparency on the performance and periodically changing status of the organisations as the external and competitive environment change? Indeed… Are we calling for meaningful, constructive participation and innovative contribution from all parties (including staff and employee representatives) to be involved in planning and pondering of quarterly performance changes and prospects? You bet! Are we suggesting a softening of lines between corporate management and union management? About time… Are we calling for more cooperative attitude from workers regarding strategies initiated by organisations in an attempt to save jobs? Of course… Are we calling for an opening of minds to e.g. cutting working hours or shortening the work-week till new turnaround strategies pay off, instead of retrenching and entirely depriving half the workers of a living? Perfect sense… Are we calling for an opening of minds to temporarily extending working hours (or increasing job content and output at same salary), to try rescue the business and avoid it resorting to retrenchment? Yes! Are we calling for more trust to be built and maintained across the board; more trustworthiness; less self-centredness; more reasonableness and social empathy in order to save jobs, save companies and save our economy? You bet your bottom Mandela Gold Coin! The next article brings to the fore what the consequences of having aloof workplace relationships when what the country needs is employer-employee cooperation and job preservation. OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE IPM

Labour Law Trends

Can

EMPLOYEES BE DISMISSED FOR REFUSING TO ACCEPT NEW EMPLOYMENT

T&C’s?

South African Labour Laws were developed to help employees thrive and the workplace to be a fair playground for all parties. Like most pieces of legislation, they are often subject to review to ensure that they continue to serve and honour the high-level intent of their design.

PEOPLE DYNAMICS | November - December 2019

an an employer dismiss employees because they refuse to agree to a change to their terms and conditions of employment? An initial answer may be, “yes”. When considering the fine print, however, there is a more difficult potential legal problem to overcome. Section 187(1)(c) of the South African Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the “LRA”) as amended in 2016, provides that a dismissal will be automatically unfair if the reason for the dismissal is “a refusal by employees to accept a demand in respect of any matter of mutual interest between them and their employer.” In terms of the law, prior to the amendment of section 187(1)(c) of the LRA, an employer who wished to implement changes to terms and conditions of employment could, if its proposed changes were rejected by employees, justify dismissing these employees on the basis of its operational requirements, provided the retrenchment was final and irrevocable and the requirements of section 189 of the LRA were met (see the decision in National Union of Metalworkers of SA & Others v Fry’s Metals (Pty) Ltd). Whether an employer was entitled to adopt this course of action after the amendment to section 187(1)(c) was considered by the Labour Appeal Court (the “LAC”) in National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa & others v Aveng Trident Steel (a division of Aveng Africa Proprietary Ltd) & Another.

Labour Law Trends

When confronted with a decrease in sales and increased costs, Aveng gave notice of possible retrenchments in terms of section 189(3) of the LRA. One of the proposals made by Aveng as a retrenchment avoidance measure during the consultation process that followed was that its workforce be restructured. It proposed that that the scope of existing jobs be redefined so as to increase the duties associated with these jobs and that jobs be restructured to reflect the job descriptions contained in the main agreement of the Metal and Engineering Industries Bargaining Council. Extensive negotiations took place on this issue but the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (“NUMSA”) refused to agree to this proposal. After reaching an impasse on this issue, Aveng informed NUMSA that it would be implementing the redesigned job descriptions and presented all the affected employees with new contracts of permanent employment together with redesigned job descriptions, without altering their rate of pay. Aveng informed the employees that if the contracts of employment were rejected, the employees would be dismissed. When the contracts were rejected by the employees, Aveng gave notice of termination of their contracts of employment. NUMSA challenged the fairness of these dismissals and argued that the dismissals had been automatically unfair by virtue of the provisions of the amended section 187(1)(c). NUMSA argued that the dismissals were automatically unfair because the reason for the dismissals was the refusal by the employees to accept Aveng’s demands in respect of the redesigned job descriptions, a matter of mutual interest. Aveng denied that the dismissals were automatically unfair and argued that the reason for the dismissals was based on its operational requirements. The Labour Court found that the dismissals were not automatically unfair. On appeal, NUMSA argued that the Labour Court erred in its interpretation of section 187(1)(c) of the LRA and that the dismissals were automatically unfair because: Aveng made a demand relating to a matter of mutual interest when it informed employees that it intended to implement the redesigned job descriptions; • the employees refused to accept this demand; and • the employees were dismissed for refusing this demand. Aveng denied that the dismissals were automatically unfair and argued that the actual reason for the dismissals was its operational requirements. In particular, Aveng argued that: • the wording of section 187(1)(c) of the LRA does not indicate that, because a proposed change to terms and conditions is refused and a dismissal thereafter ensues, the reason for the dismissal is the refusal to accept the proposed change; • no “demand” was made and instead, an alternative to retrenchment was offered to the employees, which they had a choice to accept or not. The LAC also found that the dismissals were not automatically unfair. Its reasoning was, inter alia, that: • the court referred to the explanatory memorandum issued by the Department of Labour, which provided the reasons for amending section 187(1)(c). The memorandum stated that the purpose of the amendment was to remove an anomaly arising from the interpretation of section 187(1)(c) by the SCA in its Fry’s Metals decision. This anomaly was that, after the Fry’s Metals decision, employers were wary of offering any form of re-employment to workers retrenched in the context of restructuring, even if there was a valid operational requirement for the retrenchment. This was because such an offer

might be construed as falling within the reach of section 187(1)(c) of the LRA. This had the result that dismissed employees were often deprived of offers of re-employment. • if employers were not permitted to dismiss employees who refuse to accept a change to terms and conditions of employment and to employ others in their place who are willing to accept the altered terms and conditions of employment that are operationally required, the only way to satisfy an employer’s operational requirements would be “through collective bargaining and ultimately power play”. The LAC found that this would be self-defeating by adding to the economic pressure put on an employer that was already struggling financially. • NUMSA’s approach would “perversely” lead to employers being wary of proposing any change to terms and conditions of employment during the course of a section 189 consultation process. That would undermine the purpose of a consultation process which is to encourage “engagements on all potentially viable alternatives to retrenchment”. • the fact that a proposed change is refused and followed by a dismissal does not mean that the reason for the dismissal is necessarily the refusal to accept the proposed change. The question whether section 187(1)(c) of the LRA is contravened does not depend on whether the dismissal is conditional or final, but rather on what the true reason for the dismissal of the employees is. The actual or proximate reason for the dismissal needs to be determined and there is no reason for excluding an employer’s operational requirements from consideration as a possible reason for dismissal. The LAC ultimately found that the true question that must be determined is one of causation and the usual test for determining the reason for the dismissal must be utilised: “[68] Hence, the essential inquiry under section 187(1)(c) of the LRA is whether the reason for the dismissal is the refusal to accept the proposed changes to employment. The test for determining the true reason is that laid down in SA Chemical Workers Union v Afrox Ltd. The court must determine factual causation by asking whether the dismissal would have occurred if the employees had not refused the demand. If the answer is yes, then the dismissal is not automatically unfair. If the answer is no, as in this case, that does not immediately render the dismissal automatically unfair; the next issue is one of legal causation, namely whether such refusal was the main, dominant, proximate or most likely cause of the dismissal.” After considering the facts, the court found that the purpose of Aveng making the proposal was not to gain any advantage in wage bargaining, but was rather to restructure for operational reasons to ensure Aveng’s long-term survival. The employee’s rejection of the proposal necessitated the dismissal due to operational requirements. The dominant or proximate cause for the dismissals therefore was Aveng’s operational requirements. COMMENT

What is clear from the judgment is that an employer, in the context of a retrenchment exercise at least, may dismiss employees for refusing to accept a change to terms and conditions of employment, provided of course that the employer can demonstrate that there is a genuine operational need to change terms and conditions of employment; that there is no reasonable alternative to dismissal; and that a fair consultation process has been followed. Reviewed by Peter le Roux, and courtesy: ENSafrica OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE IPM

Labour Relations

When Legalese Ruins WORKPLACE JUSTICE PEOPLE DYNAMICS | November - December 2019

Donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t let mischievous legal games and technicality-fishing corrupt workplace practices and frustrate the spirit of good Employment Relations.

Labour Relations

BY: NEIL COETZER AND COURTNEY WINGFIELD - COWAN-HARPERMADIKIZELA ATTORNEYS

egal representatives pride themselves for employing legal jargon and finding technical loopholes when defending (or prosecuting) employment dispute cases. This is quite mischievous. It wastes the parties’ resources and “defeats the ends of workplace-justice.” Employers’ disciplinary processes and procedures are often steeped in formalism and contain elements of a criminal prosecution. Procedures such as these are not what is envisaged by the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995, as amended (“the LRA”), although, admittedly, they tend to prove lucrative to unscrupulous and lazy lawyers. One of the fundamental changes that was brought about by the LRA was that disciplinary enquiries would move away from a criminal model and instead adopt a less formalistic approach. This is clear from the well-known judgment of Avril Elizabeth Home for the Mentally Handicapped v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation & Arbitration & others (2006) 27 ILJ 1644 (LC) where the Labour Court found that the LRA contemplates an informal, expeditious disciplinary process requiring, in essence, nothing more than a dialogue and an opportunity for reflection before a decision is taken to dismiss an employee. Despite this, employers have been slow to adopt less rigid disciplinary procedures and the formulation of disciplinary charges in particular has retained its criminal law character. The content of the charges contained in the charge sheet became the bone of contention in EOH Abantu (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and 2 Others (JA4/18) (LAC). In this case, Danney (“the employee”) was employed by EOH Abantu (Pty) Ltd (“the employer”) in September 2010 and was required to perform payroll administration services to one of the employer’s clients, being Wesbank. On 20 June 2011, the employee’s girlfriend asked him to assist her with the installation of Microsoft Office on her mother’s personal computer. The employee acceded to this request and sent beta keys (a type of software activation key used to activate prereleased software) to his girlfriend’s mother. On 10 August 2011, the employee’s girlfriend asked the employee to send the beta keys again, as her mother was unable to find the email containing the beta keys. The employee, instead of forwarding the email of 20 June 2011, obtained a volume licence key (a key which is used to activate a software product on multiple computers) from the employer’s server and provided this to his girlfriend’s mother. When the email of 10 August 2011 was picked up by internal forensic investigators, the employee denied ever sending out a volume licence key and insisted that he believed that he had sent a beta key to his girlfriend’s mother. Whilst conducting a review of his emails, it was discovered that the employee had, in fact emailed a volume licence key. The employee was subsequently charged with dishonesty and breach of Wesbank’s confidentiality agreements. The chairperson of the disciplinary enquiry found that the employer was unable to prove dishonesty but found the employee to have been grossly negligent and he was dismissed on this basis. At the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration, the Commissioner found the dismissal to be substantively unfair as the employee had been found guilty and dismissed for gross negligence

– something he had not been charged with. In relation to the charges, the Commissioner found that the employer was bound by the choices that it had made at the time that the employee was charged and that the employee could not be found guilty of an offence which he had not been charged with. The employer approached the Labour Court to review the arbitration award. The Labour Court dismissed the application for review, finding that the employer had not been able to prove dishonesty and, on that basis, the employee’s dismissal was unfair. The employee’s dismissal was found to be substantively unfair and he was awarded 10 months’ remuneration as compensation. Dissatisfied with this outcome, the employer appealed to the Labour Appeal Court (“the LAC”). The Labour Appeal Court found that the Commissioner and the Labour Court had not considered gross negligence and negligence to be ‘competent verdicts’ in respect of the employee’s misconduct. The LAC confirmed that disciplinary charges need not be drafted with the precision of a criminal charge sheet and added that Courts and arbitrators should not adopt an approach which is too formalistic or technical.

One of the fundamental changes that was brought about by the LRA was that disciplinary enquiries would move away from a criminal model and instead adopt a less formalistic approach. In considering the misconduct as it related to the disciplinary charges, the test to be used is one of prejudice. The test for prejudice in the circumstances is whether the employee would have conducted their defence differently had they known of the possibility of a ‘competent verdict’ to the charges. In other words, would the employee have conducted his defence differently had he known that even if the employer could not prove dishonesty, he could still be dismissed for gross negligence? The employee submitted that his evidence would have been led differently had he known that negligence was a competent verdict in the circumstances. He however failed to identify what that evidence would have been. On the facts, the Court found that the employee had failed to exercise the required standard of care which had the potential to cause reputational harm to the employer in that Wesbank could assume that its intellectual property was in safe hands with the employee. The employee’s denial of negligence, his seniority and the potential damage that his conduct could have caused all contributed to a finding that the employer was justified in finding that it had lost trust in the employee and in the continuation of the employment relationship. This judgment by the LAC has once again confirmed the understanding set out in Avril Elizabeth that disciplinary processes should not adopt an overly formalistic or legalistic character. Employers should review their disciplinary codes and procedures to adopt less rigid procedures as this would result in expediting disciplinary processes and thus reducing the costs associated with it. OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE IPM

Employment Relations

Respecting Employees’ Rights in disciplinary hearings

and avoiding unfair dismissals Maintaining sound workplace discipline is imperative to keep all employees motivated, focused and productive. When rules have been flouted, the disciplinary process to correct this should be efficient, legally correct and constitutionally fair

PEOPLE DYNAMICS | November - December 2019

BY: IVAN ISRAELSTAM, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF LABOUR LAW MANAGEMENT CONSULTING

mployees facing disciplinary hearings are entitled to many rights including that of the proper opportunity to prepare for the hearing in advance. This right stems from the more basic right that accused employees have to defend themselves against the charges brought. The employee’s right to sufficient opportunity to prepare has three facets: • The right to sufficient time to prepare a defence: The rule of thumb is that preparation time should be at least one full working day. However, depending on the number and complexity of charges and on obstacles that may exist, this preparation period may need to be extended within reason. • The right to fully understand the charges: Charges such as ‘dishonesty’ or ‘fraud’ are far too vague. Sufficient details are to be given to the employee to make preparation realistically possible. • The right to documentation: The employer should provide the

Employment Relations

accused with the documents it intends to use in the hearing as well as other relevant documents requested by the employee. In the case of Oliver vs Universiteit van Stellenbosch (Contemporary Labour Law Vol. 14 No. 9 April 2005) a forensic investigation report implicated Oliver in certain irregularities. Six days before the hearing was due to begin the employee requested documents he needed for the hearing and requested that the hearing be postponed. These requests were refused. As a result the employee applied to the High Court for an order requiring the employer to provide the requested documentation and further particulars of the charges. The Court ruled that: • The employee had not been given sufficient time to prepare and the university’s decision not to postpone was wrong • It was presumptuous of the employer to decide what documents the employee would need. • The employer had not argued that the requested documents were irrelevant, confidential or unavailable • The charges against the employee were vague • The employer was to provide the documents and the further particulars required by the employee. • This decision acts as a warning to employers in that: • The employee’s right to prepare for a disciplinary hearing is sacrosanct. • Withholding documents needlessly from the accused employee serves no useful purpose. Where the requested documents are confidential and/or irrelevant to the disciplinary charges the employer requires expert advice on how to withhold such documents in a way that does not infringe the law. • Formulating charges that are general or vague will not assist the employer’s cause, but will instead, be seen to be unfair. Formulating charges clearly, legally and in a manner useful both to the employee and to the employer is very difficult, and should be done with proper assistance. Formalising the Disciplinary Process

Any dismissal must be preceded by a fair and proper procedure. In the case of AUSA obo Melville v SA Airways Technical (Pty) Ltd (2002,6 BALR 573) the arbitrator quoted the following finding of Brassey: “By entrenching the right to fair labour practice, which can confidently be taken to embrace the right to a fair hearing in disciplinary proceedings, the Bill of Rights has reversed the position. Now the right to be heard is the primary entitlement from which derogation is possible only if it can be justified under the limitation clause. Sensitive to this, no doubt, the drafters of the LRA expressly provided for a right to be heard in the statute: section 188 states that a dismissal is unfair if the employer fails to prove that it was effected in accordance with a fair procedure. The Code of Good Practice: Dismissal in Schedule 8, which must be considered when decisions on dismissal are taken under the act, makes it clear that, while the process can be informal, the employee should nevertheless be told what case he has to meet and be given a proper opportunity to prepare and present his response.” Important elements of this quote include: • The employee’s right to be heard emanates directly from the Constitution of South Africa and is the • employee’s primary right. • The employee must be told what case he has to meet. • The employee must be given a proper opportunity to prepare and present his case.

• The Code Of Good Practice: Dismissal in the LRA does not require the process at which the • employee is heard to be a formal one. Thousands of employers lose cases at the CCMA and bargaining councils because they take too seriously the provision that the disciplinary process does “not need to be a formal one”. In practice, however, it is all but impossible to comply with the other provisions of the law of dismissal without making the disciplinary hearing process a formal one. That is, according to Brassey’s quote above, the employer is forced, in order to avoid an unfair dismissal decision, to prove that the employee’s procedural rights were complied with. Let’s look at these procedural rights born out of the LRA and case law and examine just how, in practice, the employer would need to go about proving that these rights have been complied with: • The right to be informed as to what the charges are - proof would be a written charge sheet, receipt • for which has been signed by the accused employee. • The right to a proper opportunity to prepare - proof would be a written notice of hearing, given to the • employee well in advance of the hearing, receipt for which has been signed by the accused • employee well in advance of the hearing date. • The employee’s right to be heard and to present a defence - proof would be minutes of the hearing • showing that the employee had a chance to state his case, use an interpreter and representative, • bring witnesses and cross-examine evidence brought against him/ her. • The right to be fairly judged - proof would be minutes of the hearing showing that the person was • even-handed and treated the accused without bias. I admit that, in certain cases, proof of the abovementioned compliance could be provided by means other than signed notices and minutes of proceedings. Such other proof could include, for example, oral evidence from witnesses. However, between the disciplinary process and the arbitration hearing at CCMA a great many months may elapse. As a result, the memories of witnesses fade and witnesses themselves disappear. Therefore, there is no effective replacement for written records. Consequently, once one introduces the use of records such as minutes, hearing notices and charge sheets one is converting the disciplinary process into a formal one. This conversion is reinforced by the need to separate the complainant role from the presiding officer role in order to eliminate bias. In summary, the employer’s onus to prove that all the employee’s rights have been complied with makes a formal and expertly controlled hearing essential. The officials who carry out the corrective procedure need to be highly skilled in legal procedure in order to make sure that each and every legal right of the employee is strictly adhered to. Therefore, managers must either be thoroughly trained in disciplinary process or the employer must hire a reputable labour law expert to chair its hearings. Employers are also reminded that, where the employee is allowed external legal representation at the disciplinary hearing, the employer needs to be sure that the official acting as complainant (initiator or prosecutor) and the person chairing the hearing both have the legal expertise necessary to cope with the expertise of the employee’s attorney, advocate or union official. OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE IPM

Economic Development

Hands off, I need my job! Does needing the job suffice to have you stay in it? Does this job need you? Currently, 22 million adults in South Africa need jobs, what makes you the one to hold this one?

BY: NALELI WASA

he hopes of government reducing its disproportionate wage bill beyond natural attrition are slowly dwindling. Private companies with more ruthless machinery spend millions trying to optimise human resource through streamlining. Of late, what makes up natural attrition is death and little else. Employees are digging their heels because ‘prospects are bleak’ and ‘the economy is bad’.

Get out, already!

As things are, whether you can afford to leave a job or not, you should know when it’s time to check out. Please be ready and gracefully make your exit. PEOPLE DYNAMICS | November - December 2019

Economic Development

If not…

An alternative is to make yourself indispensable – not so much to a job, but to the company and the industry through continuously accumulating knowledge, growing and diversifying skillset, nailing performance and remaining ever agile and adaptable. Not an easy feat. Elephant or Chameleon?

Whereas baby boomers and Generation-Y professionals would plan a solid cradle-to-grave career in one industry – sometimes even in one company, later generations have no such luxury or limitation, whichever way you view it. The 21st century careers are webbed, dotted, staggered, blended or blurry. Jobs can take many shapes and shades, and evolving professions give jobbers many career route options. Not all rosy, cushy or stable. Clutching and Clinging – Is it Love?

Yet, even the younger among us can land ‘that job’ – the one they love so much that everything else pales into insignificance. Their wish might be to hold on to it for dear life. With the older folk, clinging to ‘that job’ may no longer be a case of love, but a matter of dependency – all in the name of stability. We all know that stability can be good, but when jobs become a dependency, they can slowly give rise to a self-loathing or regrets about passed-up opportunities. Basically, no matter your age, a job can certainly outgrow you. Don’t clutch and cling, find your Blue Ocean and ply your professional skill ‘next-where’. Unjustified Clinging

only around 15% are contemplating or anticipating any move in the next three years. 89% claim to need their jobs… If this represented a picture of what prevails in different professions – where well over half of the population were in jobs mainly because they believe they need them (extremely high sample response) and not because they enjoy them, it leaves humanities managers with a huge job. Slavery, clearly, is taking on a new meaning. Negative Economic Impact

If people work, mainly, out of compulsion, ask yourself these questions: • How much enthusiasm could they be bringing to the workplace? (Imagine them mentoring staff or hosting interns – the effect on people development) • How many people can they inspire? (Think of their influence on company culture) • Can they make positive impact on service delivery and customer satisfaction? (Think of their contribution to company’s triple bottom line, ongoing business success and growth, or lack thereof)

We all know that stability can be good, but when jobs become a dependency, they can slowly give rise to a self-loathing or regrets about passedup opportunities. Basically, no matter your age, a job can certainly outgrow you.

A recent study we conducted among a group of professionals (n=368) has a whopping 89% of respondents claiming that the main reason they are (still) working is that they “need the job”. This is despite 65% indicating that at least one other person in their household earns an income: “has full-time/part-time, formal employment”. The study revealed that only about a third - 32% - agree or strongly agree that they “love their current job”, where 16% could neither agree nor disagree with the statement, and the rest (52%) disagree or strongly disagree with it. That’s some possibility that half the employed professionals do not love what they do (at work). Think on that. Asked whether they were likely to move or were contemplating moving on from current job, and whether likely to or were contemplating moving from current company (in the next 36 months - that’s three years), 15% said they were likely (none highly likely) to move on from current job, and 5% foresee a move from current company. 66% said they were unlikely to highly unlikely to move jobs and 89% unlikely to highly unlikely to move companies. Only 5% responded that they were likely or highly likely to move companies, and 8% likely or highly likely to move jobs – with 11% neutral. A quick recap:

Over half of the professionals in the sample do not love their jobs;

• Do they still hold jobs by getting away with doing the least they can? (Think how this test management and discipline systems of organisations – the fact that they are still in the jobs) Tolerance Levels for Dead Weight Does society deserve better, considering the unemployment rate?

Caviat: Not that there’s any guarantee that once paycheques have become a regular thing, new employees, will keep their own “love” for the job and not coast along. But, what about organisations – do they not deserve better?

Should an organisation contend with paper pushers while faced with flattened trading walls, fierce cross-industry competition, substitution threats against struggling economies? How do you disrupt people into acquiring a fresh sense of urgency? Can they be forced out of the default comfort zone or the one way out is through the door? As HR professionals and managers in The Humanities, we understand the devastation unemployment (job loss) can cause. As socially aware citizens, we also understand that a person with a job consciously or unconsciously adjusts his or her lifestyle from one of OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE IPM

Economic Development

‘having needs met’ to one of ‘creating needs’ to match the size of their paycheque. Unfortunately, most artificial needs come with additional needs. Can HR professionals help? Lifestyle Trap

A citizen of the old District Six lamented the relocation of the iconic community to what government conceived as better homes with (nicer) free-standing units. The lady pointed out that when living in the District Six chain semi-detached housing, families looked out for each other; children played together; everyone knew each other and it was a ‘proper community’ – everyone protecting the neighbourhood. Lifestyle Cost

What may have changed for old District Six migrants? In the communal living, they would have two or three grannies and grandpa’s per block looking after several kids. Children were always within elders’ sight and reach. Parents did not have to spend on fencing, alarms, insurances, housekeepers/helpers, child minders, taxis to school, etc. Now they need most of those things. A salary that would have sufficed for food, rent and clothing now has to pay for all that plus the other needs created by the “nicer”, more private lifestyle. This example shows how just a simple thing as moving house can change one’s lifestyle and make exorbitant demands on his/her salary. To meet these needs, one salary may not be enough, so both parents end up working – leaving less time for quality parenting. Will HR tell people not to move to what they perceive as better homes, safer neighbourhoods, nicer communities? No. But, building awareness of general lifestyle change cost and its potential impact on the finances, work-life balance (family life) and ultimately one’s enjoyment of one’s work - falls within the scope of HR’s employee wellbeing custodianship. Work Cost

New wardrobe maintenance, work accessories, safe work-home commute are just some of the things that eat up on what is supposed to be supplementary income. Then add to that, outsourced cooking, which is bound to be less frugal; added stress that comes with work peaks-and-troughs, difficult bosses and colleagues that one tries hard to get along with. So, health issues erupt and medical needs rise. Before you know it, the second salary is gobbled up by things that could have been avoided, had the family stayed conservative and maintained the old lifestyle. Just between work- and lifestyle costs, the bills are piling up making employees more dependent on- and needier of their jobs. But wait, there’s more… Social Cost

A new neighbourhood may compound pressure beyond one’s immediate family needs. Friendly neighbours may start inviting you to their homes for tea, dinner, kids’ parties, outings, a weekend camp and other events. All these gestures call for reciprocation. Socially, the tendency is to match the guests’ standard or even go beyond. A famous author is quoted to have said: “The richer your friends, the more they will cost you”. So, you dare not make a gift or a hosting that’s beneath your neighbours’ standards. Or so your social-status-conscious mind tells you. Next, you’ll be applying for a bank credit card, just so you can have “emergency” funds for social hosting, work maintenance and PEOPLE DYNAMICS | November - December 2019

other lifestyle interests. All these costs add up, leaving you dependent on your job such that any threat of a loss evokes dangerous thoughts. Tensions build up in the house, relationships flounder, kids get into trouble and need costly interventions. Fights about who pays for what emergency sends marriages to the divorce office. Costs compound even further, say, where a couple has split and suddenly has to maintain two households; three if there’s a new spouse with his/her other dependents. So, clearly, there are three things for Human Resources to help manage here: the ability for employees to keep their needs in check, and not allow their lifestyles turn them into slaves. Easier said than done. Lifestyle audits made common by “state capture” investigations are not standard to HR and people management. Keeping open communication lines and organising proactive ‘holistic personal management’ workshops can help empower people psychologically equipping them with high-level contentment, emotional resilience and astute finance skills. The result would be a workforce that is less outwardly directed and individuals that have strong personal values and a high sense of worth without seeking validation from material things or from matching a neighbour, colleague or friend’s lifestyle. That’s the one challenge.

Another challenge is to help employees keep not just their enthusiasm and motivation levels up. As HR practitioners, you need to help them become more valuable. In fact, they need to try and make themselves indispensable to the company. If they need their jobs so much, the job or, better still, the company must need them just as much. This means employees have to try and re-invent their roles not for self-importance, but to find ways to improve productivity, reduce unnecessary cost, gain new customers, identify new service opportunities for existing customers. Any person who feels dependent on their job should be a positive busy-body who learns all there is to learn about the company and continuously imagine ways of not only keeping the company afloat and making it competitive, but do so sustainably for it to grow into the future. People who need their jobs do this. They keep abreast with industry developments and glean market intelligence. They let their minds work continuously and creatively on how to increase value for customer groups and for the business. They are first in the office to ensure that their internal and external clients will have all they need for the day and the week. Before they leave the office, they make sure there are no loose ends: unanswered emails, customers waiting in suspense, subordinates waiting for approvals, bosses waiting with new briefs; no due-, let alone overdue reports. As a habit, they check with key (mostly internal) customers before heading out for the day, and if an unexpected brief crops up, they negotiate delivery that will suit all parties – if it means working on it after the kids go to bed later that night. The most important aspect about this animal is that, their awareness of the business and industry, their investing time understanding the concepts, principles, business drivers, levers and key ratios will actually make them more desirable, marketable and ‘indispensable’. In the event that they have used all their professional wisdom to help the organisation thrive, but cannot sustain their existing job, they would be aware of this long before due date, and pre-empt a move whether within or externally. Indeed, when it’s time to go, it won’t be “I need my job”. But it will

Economic Development

be: “who needs me the most, and is prepared to make it worthwhile?” A Personal Effectiveness COE member shared the following selfevaluation questions to help employees determine whether they will end up needing their job but forced out by financial and operational imperative, or being needed by the job and tossing options around: 1. Has anyone I don’t directly report to asked or commented about some aspect of my work or project I have undertaken recently (last two months)? 2. Does every line manager at work know and understand my role and KPI’s, enough to SEE when something is out of place AND approach ME? 3. At departmental/management meetings, do I check my understanding of my colleagues’ work, ask appropriate questions and share a thought or suggestion from a user/observer or value chain point of view? 4. Do I have a current project or two that I facilitate with interdepartmental participation and/or with a company-wide, longterm impact? 5. Do I have well-articulated Service-Level-Agreements and simple, effective monitoring system with all my internal and external clients? 6. Have I devised an efficient, user-friendly system for communication and delegation that I share with different stakeholders, for when I’m out of the office or in the office but unavailable? 7. Do I actively manage my “in-box” and to-do-list to make sure that all responses or referrals are done on-day; all actions stay on-track and are completed by deadline? 8. Has my latest 360degree performance assessment from internal or external customers, given me areas I might want to explore or improve on for the next round? 9. Do any of my colleagues solicit my opinion or seek work/ business-related advice on matters in their areas of work? The third approach Human Capital professionals can use to deal with the ‘loveless need’ for jobs is to focus on proactive management • Search for and build a network of people whose values have congruence with the organisation’s for active expert opinionsharing and as a recruitment pipeline • Get the network of experts to participate in projects or initiatives (with the organisation’s employees), to add range and diversity that infuses freshness of ideas and excitement in employees’ work • Hire the right people whose sets of values and competences are aligned with the organisation’s vision and direction such that they can self-motivate into delivery and finding solutions • Search and hire people who are more intrinsically motivated than extrinsically so • Involve various employees in inter-company and intracompany exchange programs that extend market or industry exposure, build new cultural and leadership competences, as well as keep minds sharp to spot opportunities and drive innovation • Build a rotation system among various the divisions to take senior employees out of their comfort zone and discourage stagnation and complacency among the bulk of employees – promoting new perspectives and ideas for brainstorms and employee creativity for their own roles when they return • Secure good quality leadership cohort whose disposition or style leans toward coaching - to promote employee empowerment,

affirmation, challenge, growth, self-determination and personal accountability. A study on the motivation levels, productivity and tenure of the longest-surviving NGO’s seems to suggest that, where a worker loves the job, they will stay highly-motivated and productive regardless of remuneration or monetary rewards. Such employees are motivated by autonomy, due acknowledgement (not necessary financial), and positive results on projects they facilitate, or those to which they contribute. The study showed that high intrinsic motivation among employees and transformational leadership style make for positive drivers for sustainability - definitely in smaller organisations and possibly in larger ones as well. We support the tenet that each person is responsible for their own personal growth. Organisations, through HR can support employees’ efforts and offer advice on possible growth areas within the business. The least one can do is to have an honest reflection on where they stand on this thorny ‘loveless need’ issue, and take the necessary steps to attain a healthy balance. If you need a job that badly, make sure it needs you more! You do this, not by hogging processes or withholding knowledge from colleagues and interns, thus sabotaging the organisation. You make yourself indispensable based on ongoing value-add - the growth you affect through your program implementation, and through inspiring the delivery of colleagues and new entrants, as well as by the overall impact your role has on achieving organisational priorities. If the organisation is lax on performance reviews and formal assessments, try and activate these (at least initially) between you and your boss, then systematically extend to all other internal and external clients. Positive responses to the performance-related questions asked above sure put you ahead, and, certainly out of the loveless needy league. This introspection and other types of feedback and performance evaluation are essential for professional progress and individual development. They are imperative for organisational effectiveness and overall national productivity – leading to more job options for yourself and for those currently in the queue. And of course, as you grow to love your job more and need it less, you’ll exude confidence, inspire many and beam with a kind of happiness that your loved ones will also benefit from. I need my job! Really?

Stars work themselves OUT of jobs, they don’t cling onto them beyond their life expectancy or their enthusiasm. “An open palm lets as much in as it gives away to others in need.” Allow yourself to grow, move on, move out, or move around until you find something (else) you love dearly that needs you. Avoid letting your lifestyle complicate such that it traps you. Traveling light gives you flexibility to explore and freedom to venture in all directions. Don’t bulk up your life, simplify it. Don’t be an advertiser’s dream. Focus on what builds and fulfils you – at work, at home and out there. Keep investing in relevant new knowledge and use your skill, experience and lessons to build value for organisations that match your aspirations. You have no business digging heels. Use your wings, instead! “Nothing drags people down quite like a dead-end feeling. On the flipside, nothing in a job is more exciting than when you are learning and growing every day; adding value to someone else, and making a positive, palpable impact to the entire company,” concurs our Resident Coach. OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE IPM

Leadership

Putting a Finger

on Fearless Leadership W

henever there has been a failure in service delivery, in proper accounting for an organisation’s activity or an abuse of resources, a misuse of funds or a dismal performance of an entity for whatever reason, analysts’ fingers will always point at leadership, diagnosing “poor leadership”. This confirms that for leadership to be effective, it needs to permeate and be ever-present at all points within the organisation. It cannot be reserved for executives, but it is something to be devolved PEOPLE DYNAMICS | November - December 2019

throughout operations – to ensure that there is proper responsibility and accountability at all levels. Leadership should be embedded and regarded as an essential quality among all members of the organisation. Fearless leadership empowers any member of the organisation to ring the alarm or intervene each time s/he sees something that is out of kilter (against company’s code of conduct, policies, rules or standards), in particular something that potentially harms the

Leadership

What Meaningful Fearless Leadership should be:

What wholesome Fearless Leadership shouldn’t be:

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

It needs to be principled It needs to be disciplined It needs to be measured It needs to stay human and humane It needs to be respectful It needs to be fair It needs to be just It needs to be considerate It needs to be rational It has to do no harm It has to be conscientious It has to be consistent It has to be inspiring It has to have legitimacy It has to be positive It has to be up-building It has to be unbiased

• • • • • • • • • • •

It has to be responsive It has to be resourceful It has to be empathetic It has to be ethical It has to be self-sacrificing It has to be informed It has to be relevant It has to be decisive It has to be authentic It has to be steadfast It has to be wise*

It cannot be reckless It cannot be random It cannot be haphazard It cannot be careless It cannot be destructive It cannot be corrupted It cannot be cruel It cannot be harmful It cannot be eruptive It cannot be for self-enrichment It cannot be ignorant It cannot be naïve It cannot be (blindly) loyal It cannot be wishy-washy/vague It cannot be ambiguous It cannot be duplicitous It cannot be frivolous

*situationally aware and sensitive

Table 1: Attributes and Qualities of Fearless Leadership, Source: IPMR

organisation. Those that have done this know very well that results can vary from superb - where one is acknowledged or even rewarded as a hero, to dismal - where the organisation thanks the alarm ringer with labelling, shunning, side-lining, even purging. Whatever consequence awaits, sitting mum while you see things go wrong, resources misused and power being abused won’t do you any favour. It will kill your enthusiasm as your faith in the company gradually gets eroded. It could end up lowering your own professional edge and commitment to excellence, thereby making you an accessory to corrupt culture. It’s true that sometimes things aren’t always quite as they seem, as further confirmation may be needed before one makes a conclusive assessment of the perceived wrong or misconduct. What we see as wrong may not necessarily be, in the particular context. If this is the case and you discover that you were somehow under-informed, don’t be disheartened. Fearless leadership is about staying alert and on course - never dulling your curiosity about the environment you operate in. Questioning, in most cases, leads to a reluctant but ultimately useful pause which allows for verification, justification of the action or a re-evaluation of policy, where it had been inadequate or inarticulate. Sounding an alarm could also initiate a full on investigation in areas other than where discrepancy was originally spotted. This positive, proactive action may uncover widespread defaulting on a series of company codes and bring perpetrators to book - saving the enterprise from demise and reputational damage. Either way, questioning has the potential of educating you further – giving you clarity and settling your conscience, thus empowering you as a conscientious, fearless leader. In your ardent pursuit for what’s right, and in your advocacy and activism: remember Steve Covey’s fifth habit of highly effective persons: seek first to understand. Always! Finding the Attributes of Fearless Leadership

Given that fearless leadership in wrong hands could result in tyranny and abuse of followers, citizens or subjects, we solicited input from delegates of the IPM2019 Fearless Leadership Convention regarding what it takes for Fearless Leadership to be wholesome, relevant and

meaningful to the society it serves. Rather than asking for names of who may epitomise a wholesome combination of fearlessness and leadership, we initially asked for qualities that should be attributed to fearless leadership. It was conceded that anyone can be a leader, not only by position or appointment, but by model conduct, behaviour and actions. For that reason, contribution was not directed at evaluating existing (well-known) leaders, but at identifying qualities, attributes and attitude that can be broadly associated with fearless leadership. Refer to Table 1 above. It was conceded that anyone can prove fearless, but that they may not necessarily be concerned with leading. And if they happen to be leaders, they may not be concerned about others’ welfare or wellbeing. They can be dictators, bullies, ageists, chauvinists, misogynists, racists or classists who fixate on servicing only a segment of society they favour, with total disregard for the rest. The respondents were then asked what, in their context, fearless leadership would do; how it behaves. Responses included the following: • Standing up to oppressive regimes; illegitimate, reckless or abusive authority; • Breaking barriers set across race, colour, age, gender, class, background or fields ‘reserved for a privileged few’; • Piercing through the glass ceiling, shattering superficial boundaries and standing tall in new and unchartered territories; • Daring to lead where most regard you with cool indifference, scepticism or suspicion as a wild—card in what has been closed ranks; • Leading sure-footed against adversity, undercurrent opposition and sponsored antagonism; • Taking on challenges to lead where you are constantly under the spotlight - always expected to miss a step or downright fall; • Taking reigns to mediate on issues that touch various groups of people differently, with expectation for an attentive ear, dispassionate compassion to all service beneficiaries, standing on little, aside from firm, well-founded principles as you measure contrasting views against the laws of the country and the genuine wellbeing of its people – without tainted bias, fear or favour. OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE IPM

Fearless Leaders

Putting a Face

to Fearless Leadership BY: PEOPLE DYNAMICS CORRESPONDENT

Fearless Leadership has not just been the theme of the IPM 2019 Annual Convention, it is a quality that IPM wishes all its members, partners, associates, friends, alumni and fans to aspire to. PEOPLE DYNAMICS | November - December 2019

eadership acknowledges a responsibility to take others from a place of want and dire need, temporary comforts or false security to one of better reality and even better prospects. Requisite fearlessness in leaders acknowledges that a leader often ventures from sheer faith and conviction of a better chapter, and has to brace herself to encounter setbacks, challenges and rivalry that test her resoluteness, her courage, her commitment to the role she has accepted – that of taking people from a place of want to a better reality and even better prospects. South Africa has been the richer for many a fearless leader – some long gone, some yet to be discovered, acknowledged and celebrated; some fearless and controversial. The country has been exceptionally privileged to have one internationally acclaimed fearless leader, who in her much public role in the office of Public Protector kept some distance from controversy while advocating for what is recognised to be good, right, fair and just for all people of South Africa through the country’s laws, statutes and most significantly, the Constitution. Thulisile Nomkhosi Madonsela, as she is fondly known, has shown immense integrity, demonstrating unflinching professionalism in delivery of the service South Africa entrusted her with, particularly as Public Protector. Against surprising and often unjustified attacks, she stood firm on what South Africans subscribe to and adopted as their moral guide and the state’s operating manual – the Constitution. She admits to studying it daily, like a Christian would the bible; a Jew the Torah and a Moslem the Koran. And it is this studious commitment that enabled her to have much clarity, and duly fight for what is right for all citizens. As an advocate and a passionate, seasoned civil rights and socialeconomic activist, she not only restored the meaning of ‘advocate’, but in her role as public protector, she gave it special meaning. As recounted on PPSA and SAHO’s official page, Thuli was born in 1962 in Soweto to trader parents, Nomasonto and Bafana. She obtained a bachelor of Law from the University of Swaziland in 1987 and three years later, an LLB at Wits University. She then started working as an assistant teacher at her former school, Evelyn Baring High School, and taught from 1980 to 1983. In 1984 she entered the legal profession as a legal and education officer at the Paper Printing Wood & Allied Workers Union where she worked from 1984 to 1987. Since 1987, Madonsela has worked in several government departments, civil society organisations, and academia. She has, for instance, lectured law at Wits University; been the presiding officer at the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC); worked as deputy director at the Justice Department and held the position of managing director at the Office of the Status of Women in the Presidency. When acting as the only full-time commissioner in the South African Law Reform Commission, Thuli was nominated and subsequently appointed Public Protector by then President Jacob Zuma on 19 October 2009. Of all her achievements and high profile positions that she has held, it is the Public Protector position that most put her in the public eye – testing her fearlessness as a leader. During her tenure she investigated several high profile cases, and in the process received local and international praise for her efficiency and professionalism, including recognition by Time, Glamour, Transparency International, and the BBC. Honoured with South Africa’s Most Influential Women award in 2012, Madonsela has always be one to advocate for Gender equality and the advancement of women with active membership of South African Women Lawyers Association (SAWLA) and Business Women’s Association of South Africa (BWASA). Thuli was among the contributors to the drafting of the constitution in 1994, and has in her career authored and co authored several publications including books, chapter, journals and

Fearless Leaders

handbooks on gender management and gender mainstreaming. Wrote Dr Dale McKinley of this woman on, who deservedly holds no less than five Honorary Doctorates (LLD) from Universities of Stellenbosch, Cape Town, Fort Hare, North West, KZN and her alma mater, Witwatersrand, on her being named Person of the Year, 2013: Since taking office, Madonsela has confirmed the underlying reasons for Parliament’s unanimous endorsement. She has taken the mandated vision of the Public Protector to heart - i.e. to be “a trusted, effective and accessible Public Protector that rights administrative wrongs and consistently acts with integrity to ensure fair, accountable and responsive decision making, service and good governance in all state affairs and public administration in any sphere of government.” In the process, Madonsela has turned her office into a frontline fighter for administrative and socio-economic justice, a powerful advocate for democratic openness and transparency and a dogged defender of the democratic rights of the very public she is entrusted to ‘protect’. The result is that in each of her successive four years in the position, the Office of the Public Protector has taken on more cases than her two predecessors combined. Incredibly, in the 2012-2013 financial year, her office investigated over 33 000 complaints and in 2013 alone has publicly released no less than 24 major investigative reports covering all spheres of government and involving individuals ranging from Presidents to councillors. During her tenure, the Public Protector not only became the default choice for recourse to justice and accountability of public servants, community activists, civil society organisations and other aggrieved individuals but surveys also show that her office was considered to be amongst the most trusted of all ‘institutions’ in the country. Such an achievement is all the more remarkable when considering that the Public Protector received a relatively miniscule budget for 2012-2013 of R199 million when compared to the complementary budget of R462 million given to the Office of the Presidency for ‘administration’, a R393 million received by that paragon of efficiency and delivery, the National Youth Development Agency or the R160 million provided to such crucially important public outfits as ‘Brand South Africa’. There will be no mention of public monies spent on President Zuma’s private Nkandla residence (R206 million by the latest count). With such a miserly budget, it is nothing short of a miracle that Madonsela has still managed to expand her staff complement (spread out between national, provincial and regional offices) to 398 while simultaneously dealing with close to 100 complaints a day (that’s one every 5 minutes during working hours), producing quality investigative reports and still finding time to engage in regular public debates and events with the broader population. Clearly, the PP would have none of the widespread self-enrichment, power mongering and notoriously fickle approach to actual work that has become the unfortunate hallmark of so many of our public ‘servants’ and institutions. Even more impressive is the fact that all of this has been done in the face of an increasingly concerted and virulent campaign to both personally attack Madonsela and attempt to undermine the very constitutional rights, legislative requirements and public sector ethos that her office is trying to defend and uphold. Here are a few examples during 2013. The ANC parliamentary majority’s passing of the Secrecy Bill in Parliament, a bill which would, if it is signed by President Zuma and becomes law, effectively gut the Public Protector’s ability to access ‘classified’ state information, protect whistle-blowers and thus to do her core job. Anonymous allegations against Madonsela for things such as “fruitless expenditure” and “questionable internal controls” being vigorously taken up in the

Parliamentary Committee which oversees her office despite there being no concrete evidence of such. The government security cluster’s conscious and illegal obstruction of the Public Protector’s investigation into the Nkandla matter combined with their implicit threats (using apartheid era legislation) to arrest Madonsela for possession and distribution of ‘classified’ information. And, public statements from the ANC and SACP on the Nkandla saga claiming that Madonsela has been “protecting the interests of a particular section of society”, is involved in a “politically charged agenda involving possible collaboration with anti-majoritarian liberals” and therefore “runs the risk of destroying the image and stature of the Office of the Public Protector [and] thus compromising …the very important fight against corruption”. Madonsela, like Mandela, is not some kind of saint to be elevated above legitimate criticism and democratic accountability (and she would probably be the first to say so). But she and her office have shown us, especially during 2013, that there can be public servants of whom we can be proud, who work hard and try their best to live up to the ideals and promises of our young and troubled democracy. As those fearless information warriors at amaBhungane have noted, there is a “new war between openness and accountability on the one hand, and secrecy, cloaked in the garb of security, on the other.” Thuli stood stoically at the forefront of that war, and even away from the spotlight and the Constitutional battle fields, deserves our recognition as an epitome of Fearless Leadership. While most people in our country as well as across the globe would no doubt agree that the late Nelson Mandela was one of the outstanding persons of the 20th century, between 2009 and October 2016, here in South Africa, there is another individual with exceptional qualities that combine natural intellect, a healthy conscience, unflinching purpose, selfless valiance and impeccable professionalism - who deserved the accolade awarded by SACSIS of ‘Person of the Year’ (2013) – Public Protector, Thulisile (Thuli) Madonsela. Whatever we might think of the more specific political and economic legacies bequeathed by the Mandela-era led African National Congress (ANC), there can be little argument that many of his celebrated personal qualities are in all-too-short supply amongst our contemporary politicians and government officials. Thankfully though, Thuli Madonsela showed to be a major exception. It was no accident that when Parliament recommended Madonsela to become South Africa’s third Public Protector in October 2009, there was not a single opposing vote (something that made her subsequent appointment by President Zuma almost a foregone conclusion). What those parliamentarians would have seen when they looked at Madonsela’s history, is a woman who has given her professional and political life to serving others, whether within government or civil society organisations. They would have seen a woman who takes the foundational principles of democracy seriously and more especially, understands what it means to be a public servant. And, they could not have helped but see a woman who has brought a consistency of personal integrity and humility to each of her many jobs, someone whose soft-spoken but authoritative style is undergirded by huge amounts of hard work and a practical, resultsoriented approach that demands respect. Now, that’s what I can call Fearless Leadership. We can all take a leaf and learn! Dr McKinley is an independent writer, researcher and lecturer as well as political activist. Excerpts published courtesy of The South African Civil Society Information Service, CSISS, 2013. OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE IPM

Convention Round up

CONFERENCE LOADING

IPMACE 2019 Review PEOPLE DYNAMICS | November - December 2019

The first 2020 edition of People Dynamics will bring you coverage of the IPM Convention Content delivered at Plenary, discussed at Breakaways, Workshops, Commissions and focus groups See how the annual event unfolds...

Convention Round up

TO START OFF: THE IPM ANNUAL GOLF CHALLENGE

OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE IPM

Convention Round up

GEARING UP FOR EXHIBITION

PEOPLE DYNAMICS | November - December 2019

Convention Round up

OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE IPM

PLATINUM GREETINGS

EXHIBITOR QUIZ & GIFTS

GETTING DOWN

PEOPLE DYNAMICS | November - December 2019

Personal Effectiveness

Hit the

2020

GROUND RUNNING:

Turn Goals to Plans and Plans to Achievements We might boast the best set of laws and an internationally acclaimed Constitution, thanks to our diversity and a high concentration of brain power. Yet, while beaming with wisdom about rights and wrongs, and what ought to be done, we hold a dismal record on implementation! BY: RESIDENTCOACH

es, planning is an intellectual and scientific exercise. It’s about observation, synthesising, extrapolation, forecasting conceptualisation and plotting – all those impressive and, of course, necessary things. An ill-conceived plan stands to frustrate implementation and achieve little or nothing. In the same breath, a brilliant plan, if not implemented (accordingly), is worth nothing. It is as good as no plan. One just has to think of the numerous municipalities that have ‘had to return’ funds to the fiscus because they could not spend them. There are numerous factors that potentially hinder success during implementation, some of which are outside the control of the planners or implementers. But getting on with it is not one of them! That’s not what we are about here, though. We are here to make sure that you do not fail to plan for your own personal success, and that your plan is cut to bite sizes and easy to turn it into a daily execution regime that you can follow throughout the year until your goals are achieved. The next five steps may seem cumbersome to implement and may take

you a day (with another two days to refine your thinking), but they will save you a year of frustration and a lifetime of self-blame and misery. Best of all, they will give you meaningful happiness. STEP ONE

Think what pleasure it is to accomplish something important you’d kept procrastinating. Think what it does to anyone, irrespective of age, when they realise they ‘could do it after all’, and savour the newfound achievement. Recall it. Imagine it. Feel this pleasure… Close your eyes and hear the baby’s giggle when he finally props himself up successfully to reach up the table and retrieve his favourite cup. See the little face when the baby realises he doesn’t have to crawl to you, but can actually walk! Recall the expression on a toddler when they realise they can read (identify) their own name on the nursery coat rail, in a novel or a random poster? Kids get joy from daily achievement and are always eager to explore, test, try, learn and accomplish new things. This kind of pleasure OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE IPM

Personal Effectiveness

(eudaimonic) isn’t the exclusive right of babies and toddlers. Don’t deprive yourself of self-generated happiness. There’s enough to get adults ruffled and exasperated (just as kids fall and bump into things), but that shouldn’t hold anyone back from chasing goals and finding more happiness that comes with achievement and growth. Wish yourself this pleasure – every quarter, every month, every week and every day of the coming year. And we are not talking the frivolous Urban Monkey pleasures, which are all about instant gratification and diversions while procrastinating on things that are really important to you. We are talking delight and joy that comes from meaningful accomplishment. Daily pleasure can be yours, just commit to it in writing and slip into step-by-step execution mode throughout the year. It’s like a fix. A good fix – no exorbitant consultant fees to go with it. YOU can do it. STEP TWO

Think of things you would be proud and happy to accomplish in 2020 across the different aspects of your life: career-wise, intellectually, physically, spiritually, relationally, financially, environmentally, domestically or socially. Imagine what accomplishing these things will mean to you and what they will add to your life. See yourself on the other side, see the quality of your life improve. Feel the pride… Draw a box with four squares: two columns and two rows. Write down the specific goals you wish to achieve for the coming year in each life aspect, initially placing them all on the top right hand corner. See diagram below. • Write things you know you have to do and know you’d be happy doing (like delivering on the project you pitched to your exec). • Include things you need to do but are daunting just thinking about (de-cluttering your office/home before it becomes a health- or safetyhazard). • Also write down things you’d always wished you could do and now want to button down, commit to and achieve (visit a major historical attraction, learn another language). • Don’t forget the things you need to have done but have always pushed to the next year’s to-do-list while time ticks against you… and you know in ten or twenty years you’ll regret never doing on time (think wills, retirement saving plan). Is the list long? Well, there are 365 days in a year. That’s 8 760 hours, 5 840 of which you are awake. Even if your list runs into 40 items, you still have 146 hours to tackle each goal. You may argue that there’s work, kids to look after, a house to maintain and so on, and you’d be right. The last StatsSA survey on time-use showed that South African women without a housekeeper spend 183 minutes per day on housework and men, 75 minutes. Women living with children spent an average of 87 minutes per day taking care of them, compared to men, who spent seven minutes. Personally I think the housekeeping area at 183 minutes can do with more efficiency, and this could be one of your goals: to simplify and modularise your household such that you spend less “keeping” and more using - enjoying it with the people you care about. If you are a man, and only spend an average of seven minutes a day taking care of your children, perhaps your goal will be to create more quality time with them such that women don’t have the monopoly. Whatever child-caring you do, if you run through it as hard labour or go through it as if on autopilot, you might be overlooking an opportunity and squandering time that you could be using to fulfil some meaningful goals while at it, e.g. to improve your kids’ coordination, balance, musical appreciation or numeracy to boost his/her life strengths and PEOPLE DYNAMICS | November - December 2019

future career options. No time to yourself? Even if you only squeeze four hours of discretionary time per day, where the other 12 waking hours are dedicated to bread-and-butter work and domestic duties, that gives you 1 460 hours for your own priority projects for the year – a full day and a half for each of the 40 goals. If you are really working with 40 goals, the bottom of your list will be overflowing into the bottom right quadrant, but take heart – this (Quadrant Two/top right) is just a parking bay for now. Frankly, we’d hope your list is not even half of that, unless you are talking chores not projects. But then again, if you had been hoarding your “to-do-stuff” over several years, we can understand. Separate the goals by, e.g. physical health & fitness-, work or career-, social-, personal-, emotional-, spiritual-, environmental-, financialaspirations, etc. according to your own mix. Rank your list in order of importance, based on which will make you happiest now and fulfilled in the long-term. STEP THREE

Now, think of who else (other than yourself) has an expectation from your goals or stands to benefit from each of your proposed achievements, and consider how important those third parties are to you or in your life right now. Based on how important the goals are, they stay on top of the pile, but now, depending on how expediently they should be achieved based on their impact on others, they move to the top left box (Quadrant One). Ask yourself the same question of the next goals, and if they are linked to someone else’s expectations, are time-sensitive or will have a significant impact on other people who matter to you at this point in your life, transfer them to the top left box. This exercise may remind you of the Eisenhower Matrix, but since this is all about you and your life (holistically: personal, social, spiritual, professional, etc.), there’s no delegation and no ditching of goals here – only a must-do and can-do attitude, smart work and creativity. If you perceived a goal as important in the first place, then it must be. We just need to be practical to see whether we can accomplish everything within the 1 460 discretionary hours, or some of it actually belongs to formal business hours (e.g. career-growth and related projects). If not, what about your holiday? Can you kill multiple birds with one stone, and fit one or two of your goals into this optional leisure time and still make it some fun for the family? HERE’S A BASIC EXAMPLE TO GET YOU STARTED:

Say, one of my goals is to Obtain a Drivers’ License in order to have a turn in the school lift club since my child will be starting school next year, and another is to Take Formal Piano Lessons to master the instrument and increase my repertoire. Classy, you see? The drivers’ licence would fall under Social Goals since this is a community effort and there are two or three other parents and their children who stand to benefit from this in addition to my own. So, that goal moves to the top left quadrant. The other goal (piano) will probably give me much more personal pleasure, and it is something I will enjoy way beyond school lift club stage, into my retirement years. It is very important. But as you have guessed, it is not as ‘urgent’ as getting the drivers’ licence, particularly since I do not plan to change careers to become a pianist. So, this goal falls under Personal Goals (if you have Recreational Goals, it may well be in there) and can remain in the top right quadrant. So, keep going, allocating the rest of your goals either to the top left or keeping to the top right. Let’s hope you have not overwhelmed yourself

Personal Effectiveness

with too many. The ideal is one or two essential goals per category: things you plan to pursue and achieve in 2020. EXTENDED EXAMPLE:

Say, among my goals I want to “Master Administering of Psychometric Evaluations” and I am currently an HR practitioner specialising in Labour Relations, it stands to reason that this goal can play a role in expanding my overall HR value-proposition – potentially enriching my career and boosting my earnings. Recognising its importance and potential, therefore, I’m obligated to reconsider its position in the matrix. It will definitely go higher in the list than “Take Formal Piano Lessons”. If the course had dropped to the bottom right quadrant it will now move up to the top right quadrant with a Career Goal label. The next question would be whether or not there is an expectation for me to complete this Psychometric Evaluations training by anyone who may be reliant on my services, which would take the goal to the top left quadrant. In this case, my current specialisation is Labour Relations, this goal is purely based on my personal development aspirations – for me to create further opportunities for myself – possibly during 2020 or later, so no one expects me to be a Psychometrician, so it stays in the top right quadrant. As you evaluate more goals, keep adjusting their positions (up, down, left or right) as you see their importance, impact and urgency. Note: Drivers’ Licence may fall under “Domestic” or “Family”, while

you may have Piano Lessons under “Recreation”, and Reviewing Medical Aid Options under “Health”, depending on what you have named your 2020 Goal Categories. Also, strictly speaking, Medical Aid Review (please refer to diagram below) could be No.2 Goal in Quadrant One, since medical aids have a limited window AND other family members may be impacted by your choice review. Setting goals affords you the opportunity to chalk up numerous pleasures - great ones and tiny ones as you achieve milestones daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly and annually. Goals give you something to wake up for and stretch towards; something to be proud of, something to be excited and happy about, and if you are into that sort of thing: something to brag about. Mind you, the main and most important person we are concerned with impressing here is YOU. Again, we aren’t entertaining the naughty Urban Monkey! (See page 27 for Ana Swanson’s Washington Post write-up on Tim Higher Importance? Move up

Quadrant One: Very Important Impacts Others Urgent 1. Get Drivers’ Licence ASAP (Social)

Quadrant Two: Very Important Less Urgent 2. Enrol for Psychometric Evaluation Training by Q1 2020 (Career)

Quadrant Three: Important Urgent 1. Review Cheaper Medical Aid Options by End Jan 2020 (Financial)

Quadrant Four: Important Less Urgent 1. Take Formal Piano Lessons by June Holidays 2020 (Personal)

Urgent and/or Impacting others? Move to the left

Diagram 1: Personal Goal/Planner Matrix

Urban’s “Wait but Why” Empty-Happiness Monkey) Now, you have your high-level goals in a matrix, you can always visualise them, remind yourself of their varying importance and urgency, and stay conscious of how they each need your attention and completion by end of 2020. Now to the action part… STEP FOUR

For each goal that you have set for yourself - hopefully not exceeding fourteen in total, since each goal will have several steps… Ask yourself what you have to do 1. immediately, (in preparation) 2. in Period One (Month One or Quarter One depending on how involved the steps are and what the timeline from one step to the next might be), 3. Period Two (Month/Quarter Two), 4. Period Three (Month/Quarter Three), and so on towards achieving each one of the goals. Take care to break the goal down to practical steps – detailing the actual action required. Bullet or number the actions and use specific date, time and place where applicable, as well as requisite resource/support, next to each action. BASIC EXAMPLE FOR ACTIONING YOUR PLAN Goal One: “To obtain A Drivers’ Licence” Steps Overview:

*Desk Research and Short-listing, *Inquiries and Selection, *Securing Resources, *Bookings, *Lessons, *Pre-Test Prep, Exam, *Operating schedule agreement Timeline: Period One: November – December 2019 Actions

1. determine what an ideal service provider would offer (e.g. to be convenient, flexible, registered/approved, good safety and pass-rate track record/reviews and cost-effective); 2. research service providers who qualify in the catchment area identified (e.g. close to work such that practice can be over lunch-time and/or on way home); use internet search, local directories, licensing department enquiries 3. find out or confirm the advertised costs, payment options and available slots telephonically 4. go physically to check out the facility/service provider and make a provisional booking (that already a commitment to a third party – great progress!); 5. draw from savings, or target specific month end to set aside money for the lessons; 6. with money “in hand”, do a telephonic or online confirmation of your slot - indicating pick-up point, date and time, and pay deposit as required; 7. refresh your knowledge on driving and road rules Timeline: Period Two: January – February 2020 Actions:

(remember to use specific date, time and place and names where applicable, next to each action. Some info may only be available once the programme has started; fill in as you get it) OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE IPM

Personal Effectiveness

1. Finalise Payment with Driving School 2. Confirm First Driving Lesson and Subsequent schedule 3. Take driving lessons 4. Get approval for test and recommended test station from instructor 5. Find Drivers’ Licence test slots at the recommended test station(s) – checking convenience against your work diary, book and pay (electronically) 6. Discuss Drivers’ Test with supervisor and Submit time-off application 7. Book a friend to take you to the driving test on the day and arrange meeting place and time (otherwise use taxi if you’re brave) Timeline: Period Three: March 2020 Actions:

1. Prepare for final driver’s test (state dates and specific action e.g. have Sindi take me through final practice session for things that make me nervous, like side-parking and steep hill control) 2. Test Day! Meet up with friend to take you to the Licence Test Station (state specific date, time and place as per arrangements) 3. Get your drivers’ licence! Timeline: Period Four: April 2020 Actions:

(As an officially-qualified Operator) 1. Confirm Schedule for Transporting kids e.g. Calendar for the year 2. Inaugural School-taxiclub Event – Optional celebration or fanfare? 3. Perform School-taxi runs according to agreed Schedule throughout the year (i.e. Transport kids as per goal) Note: very similar steps would apply for any of the goals including the

Piano Lessons and Psychometric Evaluation Training. For the latter, your actions might continue as follows:

Step Five

Plot all the actions on a single-view year planner or excel spreadsheet, colour-coding actions according to the goal category they fall under (and/or by their Importance/Time-sensitivity Status). Note that there’s a significant difference between the standard Eisenhower Matrix, which is for work decision-making and timemanagement and what we have created. The contents of YOUR matrix are all things you have decided are important to your present AND long-term happiness. So, again, there’s no “ditch” or “delegate”. (Refer to diagram in Ana Swanson’s article, page 27) Here, we are dealing with things you’re committing yourself to accomplish according to YOUR personal goals or aspirations. Your goals will now be on a single point (a dashboard, if you use an electronic package like Filterize’s below), and you can execute with relative ease according to your plan, thereby reducing the need for additional planning (or over-thinking). This is a very simple and practical way to avoid procrastination, and to hold yourself accountable as each action gets due. Just fulfilling each action on your planner is reason for a small celebration, whether actions are applicable daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly or on-demand. It will always be worth reminding yourself that you took a wish or an idea, crystalised it in your head – pictured yourself accomplishing it, committed it on paper as a plan, recounted to yourself the big-picture why, but conscientiously wrote the action detail; describing the what, devised and recorded the how, when and with what/with whom. This is your gift to yourself to have a meaningfully happy, pleasurefilled and fulfilling 2020. If you shopped for an electronic tool, the visual might look something like this: URGENT + IMPORTANT Do it now

IMPORTANT, NOT URGENT Decide when to do it

1. Self Evaluation (state the date, basis and method) 2. Independent Feedback (state date, basis, method, conductor/ reviewers)

 Make an offer to Bob  Check the KPI for Q4  Deploy critical bugfix

 Go to gym  Think about new product ideas  Start an awesome project

Timeline: Period Six: June 2020 Actions:

URGENT, NOT IMPORTANT Delegate

NOT URGENT, NOT IMPORTANT Do it later / Dump it

1. Test to take proficiency a higher level 2. Update/Record CPD’s for database/submission to professional body (where applicable) 3. Apply for a designation review (where applicable) 4. Register acquired proficiency/new designation at quarterly performance review or HR personal files (where relevant) 5. Update your professional profile on business-social media 6. Find further network/social opportunities to sharpen and keep your skill alive (COP’s, Round Table Discussions, Volunteering, Mentoring commitments, etc.)

 Respond to Mary  Send business report to boss

Timeline: Period Five: May 2020 Actions:

Take each of the goals you have set for yourself; outline the steps you plan/need to undertake to achieve it, and break the steps down into timed actions, and repeat the process till you are done with all of them. TIP: Try to be specific when writing your actions such that you can identify exactly which Goal each action refers to. “Make the booking”, “make payment”, “discuss with supervisor”, etc. can be part of any other goal. When all your actions are placed on one calendar or single-view planner by date, you should be able to instantly identify exactly what goal a particular action contributes to. PEOPLE DYNAMICS | November - December 2019

   

Clean up garage Repair lawnmower Sort stamp collection Build paper airplane

Figure 2: Computer-aided Goal Matrix Visual Courtesy, Filterize Figure 2 above demonstrates how an electronic planner matrix looks. Of course you would have different headings for quadrants, and different goal/aspirations - ones next to each little tick box. When you click on any goal, you would get a drill-down of all your action-steps pertaining to the executing of that goal. Some versions can actually link each action to your e-calendar, so that each action due pops up on your computer screen and on all your linked mobile devices on the particular week or day. Note: You can’t be too late to start. If you haven’t gone through the process by yourself over the holidays, you can join the first of IPMguided series on January 27th, 2020 – part of The 2020 Employee Wellbeing & Personal Development Series. Don’t miss out.

Employee Wellness

WHAT SABOTAGES YOUR PLANS?

If you haven’t been exposed to Tim Urban’s Ted Talk and his poignant analysis of procrastination in “WaitbutWhy”, consider yourself orientated, thanks to Ana Swanson’s reflection. The self-sabotaging rational decision-maker terrorised by a mischievous Monkey then a scary Monster may be staring back at you in the mirror.

ave you ever sat down to complete an important task — and then suddenly discovered you were up loading the dishwasher or engrossed in the Wikipedia entry about Chernobyl? Or perhaps you suddenly realize that the dog needs to be fed, emails need to be answered, your ceiling fan needs dusting — or maybe you should go ahead and have lunch, even though it’s only 11 a.m.? Next thing you know, it’s the end of the day and your important task remains unfinished. For many people, procrastination is a strong and mysterious force that keeps them from completing the most urgent and important tasks in their lives with the same strength as when you try to bring like poles of a magnet together. It’s also a potentially dangerous force, causing victims to fail out of school, perform poorly at work, put off medical treatment or delay saving for retirement. A Case Western Reserve University study from 1997 found that college-age procrastinators ended up with higher stress, more illness and lower grades by the end of the semester. But the reasons people procrastinate are not understood that well. Some researchers have viewed procrastination largely as a failure of self-regulation — like other bad behaviours that have to do with a lack of self-control, such as overeating or overspending. Others say it’s not a matter of being lazy or poor time management, as many smart OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE IPM

Employee Wellness

overachievers who procrastinate often can attest. They say it may actually be linked to how our brain works and to deeper perceptions of time and the self.

named after Dwight D. Eisenhower, the famously productive president. Eisenhower thought that people should spend their time on what was truly important to them — the tasks in Quadrants 1 and 2 below.

TIPS TO HELP YOU STOP PROCRASTINATING

Procrastination affects many people, preventing them from completing their most urgent and important tasks. First, we need to understand exactly how procrastination works, and how to stop. Psychological research, comics including the “The Simpsons” explain.

Urgent

Not Urgent

Important

Not Important

THE REAL ORIGINS OF PROCRASTINATION

Most psychologists see procrastination as a kind of avoidance behaviour, a coping mechanism gone awry in which people “give in to feel good,” says Timothy Pychyl, a professor who studies procrastination at Carleton University, in Ottawa. It usually happens when people fear or dread, or have anxiety about, the important task awaiting them. To get rid of this negative feeling, people procrastinate — they open up a video game or Pinterest instead. That makes them feel better temporarily, but unfortunately, reality comes back to bite them in the end. Once the reality of a deadline sets in again, procrastinators feel more extreme shame and guilt. But for an extreme procrastinator, those negative feelings can be just another reason to put the task off, with the behaviour turning into a vicious, self-defeating cycle. WHY IT FEELS SO GOOD TO READ ABOUT THIS PRINCETON PROFESSOR’S FAILURES

Tim Urban, who runs the blog Wait But Why, created an amazing and funny (if layman’s) explanation of what may happen inside the brain of a procrastinator. Urban calls himself a master procrastinator — he didn’t begin writing a 90-page senior thesis until 72 hours before it was due. Urban gave a TED Talk about his own extreme procrastination tendencies, in which he used some of his own cartoons to explain how life is different for an extreme procrastinator. First, he describes the brain of a non-procrastinator, in which a “rational decision-maker” has a firm grip on the wheel. The brain of a procrastinator looks similar, except for the presence of a little friend, which Urban labels the “instant gratification monkey.” The monkey seems as though he will be fun, but in fact he is a lot of trouble, as Urban’s comics illustrate. On his website, you can see the monkey playing, teasing, tempting, enticing, cajoling, persuading, and taking over the (decision-making) wheel, doing everything fun and fabulous that fascinates the rational mind and tickles the brain pink – everything that detracts from the important job on your to-do list, that is. This continues until things get really bad — the prospect of the end of your career or your schooling looms. Then something that Urban calls the “panic monster” kicks in, scares the naughty monkey off to the woods - which finally spurs you into action. People can be various kinds of procrastinators, Urban says. Some procrastinate by doing useless things, such as searching for cat GIFs. Others actually accomplish things — cleaning their homes, working their boring jobs — but never quite getting to the things they really want to accomplish in life, their most important, long-term goals. Urban uses the Eisenhower Matrix to illustrate this, a graphic that was included in “The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People”. It’s PEOPLE DYNAMICS | November - December 2019

Unfortunately, most procrastinators spend little time in those quadrants, Urban says. Instead, they mostly hang out in Quadrants 3 and 4, doing things that may be urgent, but are not important. Occasionally, when the panic monster takes over, they take a very brief detour to Quadrant 1. Urban says this habit is disastrous because “the road to the procrastinator’s dreams — the road to expanding his horizons, exploring his true potential and achieving work he’s truly proud of — runs directly through Quadrant 2. Q1 and Q3 may be where people survive, but Q2 is where people thrive, grow and blossom.” This is Urban’s own personal explanation of how and why he procrastinates — but his account actually corresponds with psychological research on the topic. Pychyl discusses the idea of the “monkey mind” — that our thoughts are constantly darting all over the place, preventing us from concentrating. And psychologists agree that the problem with procrastinators is that they are tempted to give in to instant gratification, which brings people the kind of instant relief psychologists call “hedonic pleasure,” rather than staying focused on the long-term goal. Important goals (the kind that occupy the first and second quadrants above) are more challenging but in the long run bring longer lasting feelings of well-being and self-satisfaction that psychologists call “eudaimonic pleasure.” PRESENT HOMER VS. FUTURE HOMER

Psychologists have some other fascinating models to understand the forces behind procrastination. Some believe that procrastination is so intractable because it’s linked to deeper perceptions of time and the difference between what they call “the present and future self.” The idea is that, even though we know that the person we will be in a month is theoretically the same person that we are today, we have little concern, understanding or empathy for that future self. People are far more focused on how they feel today. Pychyl points to a clip from “The Simpsons” as a pretty good illustration of the different ways we think about our present and future selves. In one episode, Marge scolds her husband for not spending

Employee Wellness

enough time with the kids. “Some day, these kids will be out of the house, and you’ll regret not spending more time with them,” she says. “That’s a problem for future Homer. Man, I don’t envy that guy,” Homer says, while pouring vodka into a mayonnaise jar and then downing the concoction before collapsing on the floor. “When making long-term decisions, [people] tend to fundamentally feel a lack of emotional connection to their future selves,” says Hal Hershfield, a psychologist at UCLA Anderson School of Management who studies the present and future self. “So even though I know on some fundamental level in a year’s time, I’ll still be me, in some ways I treat that future self as if he’s a fundamentally different person, and as if he’s not going to benefit or suffer from the consequences of my actions today.” Hershfield’s research supports this idea. Hershfield has taken fMRI scans of people’s brains as they thought about themselves in the present: a celebrity like Natalie Portman or Matt Damon, and then themselves in the future. He found that people process information about their present and future selves with different parts of the brain. Their brain activity when describing their self in a decade was similar to when they were describing Natalie Portman. Emily Pronin of Princeton University led a study with somewhat similar findings in 2008. She presented people with a nasty concoction of soy sauce and ketchup and had them decide how much they or another person would have to drink. Some people choose for themselves, others chose for other people and a third group chose for themselves in two weeks. The study showed that people were willing to commit to drinking a half-cup of the nasty concoction in the future but committed to only two tablespoons that day. Pychyl’s latest research suggests that those who were more in touch with their future selves -- both two months and ten years down the line -- reported fewer procrastination behaviours. However, research also suggests that procrastinators might be able to get more in touch with their future selves — a change that could help make them happier in the long term. In one study by Hershfield, some subjects used virtual reality to look at digitally aged photographs of themselves. Then all of the test subjects were asked how they would spend R15,000. Those who saw the aged photo chose to invest twice as much in a retirement account as those who did not. A photo of Hal Hershfield, in “Increasing Saving Behaviour Through Age-Progressed Rendering of the Future Self,” depicts his digital avatar, and his digitally aged avatar, bringing to life the image of the same person now and down the line. Hershfield et. al. Interestingly, insurance companies have latched onto these findings to try to drum up more business. Using a social media app, you can now upload a photograph of yourself and see it digitally aged. Allianz also created a similar tool with the help of its own team of behavioural scientists.

that they should avoid being out of the ocean,” Urban writes. But there are some simple tips, those who study the subject say, that can help procrastinators get down to business. 1. Understand and Forgive Yourself

Interestingly, research suggests that one of the most effective things that procrastinators can do is to forgive themselves for procrastinating. In a study by Pychyl and others, students who reported forgiving themselves for procrastinating on studying for a first exam ended up procrastinating less for a second exam. This works because procrastination is linked to negative feelings, the researchers say. Forgiving yourself can reduce the guilt you feel about procrastinating, which is one of the main triggers for procrastinating in the first place. 2. Don’t Wait on the ‘Right Mood’ or mode

But the best thing that Pychyl recommends is to recognize that you don’t have to be in the mood to do a certain task — just ignore how you feel and get started. “Most of us seem to tacitly believe that our emotional state has to match the task at hand,” says Pychyl. But that’s just not true. “I have to recognise that I’m rarely going to feel like it, and it doesn’t matter if I don’t feel like it.” 3. Break a Task/Project into Simple, Logical Actions

Instead of focusing on feelings, we have to think about what the next action is, Pychyl says. He counsels people to break down their tasks into very small steps that can actually be accomplished. So if it’s something like writing a letter of reference, the first step is just opening the letterhead and writing the date. Even if it’s an extremely small action, a little progress will typically make you feel better about the task and increase your self-esteem, which in turn reduces the desire to procrastinate to make yourself feel better, he says. 4. Master your Emotions

Pychyl believes that teachers and parents should teach kids to deal with the temptations of procrastination from a young age. “A lot of teachers think that kids have time-management problems, when they procrastinate. And they don’t have a time-management problem. What they have is an emotion-management problem. They have to learn that you don’t feel good all the time, and you’ve got to get on with it.” “Mark Twain is quoted as saying, ‘If your job is to eat a frog, eat it first thing in the morning, and if your job is to eat two frogs, eat the big one first,’” Pychyl says. Urban basically says the same thing in different language. 5. Make a Conscious Move from Big Picture to the Detail

HOW TO RETURN TO THE LAND OF THE PRODUCTIVE

Beyond trying to be kinder to our future selves, what else can people do about procrastination? Tim Urban points out that the typical advice for procrastinators — essentially, to stop what they’re doing and get down to work, is ridiculous, because procrastination isn’t something that extreme procrastinators feel as though they can control. “While we’re here, let’s make sure obese people avoid overeating, depressed people avoid apathy, and someone please tell beached whales

“No one ‘builds a house,’” he writes. “They lay one brick again and again and the end result is a house. Procrastinators are great visionaries — they love to fantasize about the beautiful mansion they will one day have built — but what they need to be are gritty construction workers, who methodically lay one brick after the other, day after day, without giving up, until a house is built.” Ms Swanson is a former Washington Post, Economics Writer Courtesy: The Washington Post OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE IPM

Workplace Wellbeing

recent report by OECD* showed that the average workweek for full-time employees in South Africa is 43.3 hours, whereas a Gallup survey shows U.S. average to be 46.7 hours, which adds up to almost a full extra day of work. According to Quartz Africa, nearly 12% of the South African workforce spent more than 60 hours per week on the job. This is despite the fact that South Africa’s labour laws prohibit more than 45 hours per week and no more than 10 hours in overtime. About a third of full-time employees admit to working additional hours on the weekends. These additional work hours take a toll on workers, leading to burnout and work overload in 68% of fulltime workers. Therefore, it is not surprising that organizational researchers have invested considerable attention trying to better understand the role that work plays in an individual’s well-being. WELLBEING FROM CONTENTMENT AND ACCEPTANCE OR CONGRUENCE AND ACHIEVEMENT?

Successful Management of Employee Wellbeing Rests on a Clear Understanding and Appropriate Measurement of both the Hedonic and Eudaimonic experience in the Workplace

Work life consumes a significant part of most individuals’ lives. Despite rife unemployment, some employees report a 60-hour workweek. Little wonder people are cranky, families in disarray and children high on tech. PEOPLE DYNAMICS | November - December 2019

Well-being researchers promote two complementary perspectives to understanding well-being: hedonic and eudaimonic, yet much of the research focusing on well-being at work has focused only on the hedonic perspective which revolves around happiness and an individual’s cognitive and affective evaluation of his/her life. In contrast, the eudaimonic perspective focuses on optimal functioning and human growth and is typically referred to as psychological well-being. This perspective is grounded in the notion that well-being is more than just happiness and pleasure. It occurs when individuals’ activities and mental states are authentic and congruent with their deeply held beliefs or values. Unfortunately, unlike hedonic workplace well-being, no measure exists to capture well-being at work from the eudaimonic perspective. The purpose of our study is not only to introduce a specific conceptualization of eudaimonic workplace well-being, but also to develop and validate a new measure for researchers and practitioners who want to go beyond assessing hedonic well-being. Among other things, we extend our understanding of the importance of eudaimonic well-being at work by exploring the predictive ability of our measure with key organizational constructs. We utilize seven samples consisting of 1346 participants to accomplish these goals. THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENT General well-being: Hedonic and eudaimonic perspectives

Well-being researchers have traditionally emphasized one of two complementary perspectives when considering individuals’ feelings of well-being in general (i.e., across life domains). The first is the hedonic perspective which is rooted in hedonism, or the idea that the good life is created by maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. Psychologists have approached the hedonic perspective of wellbeing by focusing on an individual’s subjective rating of happiness, judgments about the good/bad elements of his/her life. The second perspective of well-being, and the main focus of this study, is the eudaimonic perspective. Eudaimonic well-being centres on individual flourishing and fulfilment of one’s potential and draws heavily on the human growth and development literature. The eudaimonic perspective of well-being is primarily conceptualized and measured using Ryff’s construct of psychological well-being (PWB). PWB is based on an individual’s growth and fulfilment in six dimensions. The first three dimensions–selfacceptance (positive attitudes about oneself), positive relations with others (warm, trusting interpersonal relations) and autonomy (a sense *Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development

Workplace Wellbeing

of freedom from the norms governing everyday life) are drawn from self-actualization and self-determination theory. The latter three draw from ideas of mastery and optimal functioning–environmental mastery (ability to control and contribute to the environment), purpose in life (a sense of purpose, directedness and intentionality) and personal growth (continuing to develop one’s potential and grow as a person). Together, the six dimensions represent the eudaimonic perspective of general well-being. Despite the fact that the hedonic and eudaimonic perspectives have been shown to be conceptually and empirically distinct types of well-being, a great deal of confusion arises because both forms are typically referred to as “well-being” making them seem interchangeable. Yet, the empirical evidence shows that, although the hedonic perspective and eudaimonic perspective are highly correlated (r = .70), almost 50% of the population is either high on one or the other, but not both. Thus, research that allows the different types of well-being to be interchangeable can be problematic because scholars measuring well-being using only one of the two perspectives may form an incomplete picture since what drives a person’s level of happiness (hedonic), may be very different from what enhances his/ her sense of meaning/purpose (eudaimonic). Since scholars generally agree that both the hedonic and eudaimonic perspectives are important for understanding a person’s general well-being, we argue they should be equally important to understanding an employee’s workplace well-being. This is because, as noted by Ryff and Singer, “Well-being, construed as growth and human fulfilment, is profoundly influenced by the surrounding contexts” (p. 14). Therefore, to truly capture and influence an employee’s overall well-being at work, it is important to develop a work-specific conceptualization and measure of eudaimonic workplace well-being that can complement the hedonic perspective of workplace well-being. See The Five Hypotheses on page 33 DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to gain a deeper understanding of what it means to have well-being at work. Although scholars have long discussed what it means to have a “good life” in general, the workplace represents a unique context and well-being in one context does not always translate to another. To address this issue, we developed a domain-specific conceptualization and measure of eudaimonic wellbeing at work (EWWS). Our study included seven separate samples, 1346 participants, and multi-wave data to lend empirical support for both the EWWS and a new overall model of workplace well-being. Our results generally support our hypotheses. Specifically, we demonstrate that the EWWS can be used as a standalone scale that is distinct from general eudaimonic well-being and other similar constructs such as job engagement, life satisfaction, or leader-member exchange (Hypotheses 2, 3). Furthermore, the EWWS predicts key organizational constructs such as creativity and turnover intentions (Hypothesis 4). Importantly, our data suggest that the most complete picture of workplace wellbeing involves a combination of eudaimonic and hedonic perspectives (Hypothesis 5). Said simply, our work supports that well-being at work is best achieved when employees feel a two dimensional sense of meaning and purpose (intrapersonal well-being) and experience positive social interactions (interpersonal well-being; Hypothesis 1) combined with a sense of positive affect (job satisfaction) toward their roles. Finally, this overall construct of workplace well-being is significantly related to key organizational constructs such as organizational citizenship behaviours and employee popularity (Hypothesis 6).

THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS

Our work highlights the importance of adding the interpersonal side of eudaimonic well-being at work. This is somewhat unique compared to previous conceptualizations of workplace well-being which has failed to capture the importance of workplace relationships in influencing employees’ sense of well-being at work. Although researchers have long emphasized the importance of affiliation and social needs in the workplace, well-being researchers have not addressed this idea directly. We suggest that the interpersonal aspects of work are particularly central to well-being in today’s modern workplaces characterized by open workspaces, virtual work, teamwork, and connective technologies that drive employee communication at work. The intrapersonal dimension of eudaimonic workplace well-being is equally important. This dimension reinforces theory that focuses on the meaningfulness and purpose employees experience when their role aligns with their deeply held values and interests. Previous work has found a positive association between an individual’s interests and his/her physical health and general well-being, suggesting that there may also be a link to workplace well-being. Our findings also have implications for the study of job satisfaction. In this study, we reinforce the notion that well-being is more than just affect while still recognizing the important role played by job satisfaction. We found that when controlling for positive and negative affect, overall workplace well-being significantly predicted OCBO as well as employee popularity, whereas job satisfaction did not. This supports prior claims that workplace well-being represents more than simply affect and that it can aid scholars in explaining employee fluctuations in key organizational constructs. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

From a practical perspective, developing a sound conceptualization and measure of eudaimonic workplace well-being is important for organizations wishing to increase retention and motivation of talented employees. From our scan of the industry literature, organizations interested in workplace well-being are forced to rely on measures provided by a myriad of consulting firms whose measures often confuse concepts such as life satisfaction, happiness, and health, and employee engagement, or fail to comprehensively capture the broad conceptualization of overall workplace well-being. The classic annual “engagement survey” that is promoted by many organizations is wellknown for presenting a myriad of insights with little sense of how to act upon those insights since it’s unclear what the survey is tapping. The result is that organizational decision makers do not have a clear understanding regarding what constitutes workplace well-being in the first place, how it differs from other constructs, how to ensure its reliable and valid measurement, and what to do with data that represents it. The prominence of the interpersonal dimension of workplace well-being is also practically relevant to organizations wanting to increase well-being at work. Given the current shift from traditional workplaces, employees are engaging in less face-to-face social interaction. Approximately 30 million Americans work from home at least once a week and an estimated 3 million only work from home and these numbers are expected to grow by 63% in the next five years. Despite the up-side to these non-traditional work settings in terms of decreased turnover and absenteeism, our findings suggests that employees’ feelings of connectedness and acceptance play an integral part in their workplace well-being. Non-traditional work environments now and in the future may not meet those needs. Future research should consider whether employees’ levels of interpersonal OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE IPM

Workplace Wellbeing

workplace well-being can be sufficiently satisfied virtually as online interactions continue to increase.

Please indicate your agreement with the following statements. (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree)

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

As with any study, we recognize the existence of certain limitations. First, our data was restricted to self-report data. Scholars have suggested that self-report data could be biased by any number of methodological artifacts. However, since the majority of the constructs in our study centred on an individual’s subjective feelings, it is unlikely the perception of those feelings will be as accurate by others as they are by the individual him/herself. We attempted to minimize this bias by controlling for social desirability and positive and negative affect when assessing construct validity of the new eudaimonic workplace well-being measure. Future research should more closely examine whether an individual’s well-being at work can be accurately perceived and reported by others within the organisation. Given the cross-sectional nature of our data collection, we cannot make causal inferences based on our study. Past research has found that the relationship between the hedonic perspective of workplace well-being (job satisfaction) and the hedonic perspective of overall well-being (subjective well-being, or happiness) is bi-directional, but the design of our study does not allow us to make such inferences. Future research could make use of longitudinal data to determine if a similar bi-directional relationship exists between eudaimonic workplace well-being (EWWS) and eudaimonic general well-being (psychological well-being). Finally, future research should also examine the relationship between an employee’s workplace well-being and the human resource practices designed to enhance well-being. For example, companies are currently spending an average of R7704.50 per employee on corporate wellness programs designed to enhance employee wellbeing [90]. Future research should examine whether these programs significantly impact employee’s eudaimonic workplace well-being as well as consider which moderating factors also play an important role with regard to a wellness program’s impact. For instance, the alignment of the wellness program with the company’s overall values could help determine the ultimate impact on an employee’s eudaimonic workplace well-being. If wellness programs align with organizational values, then such alignment should spread to the employees’ interests and values and allow these programs to positively influence the intrapersonal dimension of eudaimonic workplace well-being. CONCLUSION

Current generalized measures of a person’s well-being lack comprehensiveness and the specificity required to adequately assess employee well-being at work. Hedonic workplace well-being alone fails to address areas related to meaning and purpose as well as relationships at work, which are both important in enabling employees to experience eudaimonic workplace well-being. We validate a measure of eudaimonic workplace well-being (i.e., EWWS), which reflects both intrapersonal and interpersonal dimensions of workplace well-being. This two-dimensional measure can either stand on its own as a measure of eudaimonic workplace well-being or can be combined with job satisfaction to create a three factor higher-order construct of overall workplace well-being. APPENDIX

DIRECTIONS: This portion of the survey consists of a number of statements that may describe how you feel within your workplace. PEOPLE DYNAMICS | November - December 2019

Interpersonal dimension

1. Among the people I work with, I feel there is a sense of brotherhood/sisterhood 2. I feel close to the people in my work environment 3. I feel connected to others within the work environment 4. I consider the people I work with to be my friends Intrapersonal dimension

5. I am emotionally energized at work 6. I feel that I have a purpose at my work 7. My work is very important to me 8. I feel I am able to continually develop as a person in my job

THE SIX HYPOTHESES Hypothesis 1: The construct of eudaimonic workplace well-being consists of two distinguishable dimensions that define its domain: interpersonal and intrapersonal. Hypothesis 2: Eudaimonic workplace well-being is distinct from general eudaimonic well-being. Hypothesis 3: Eudaimonic workplace well-being is significantly related, yet distinct from other key constructs such as (a) employee engagement, (b) life satisfaction, (c) leader-member exchange, and (d) social undermining. Hypothesis 4: Eudaimonic workplace well-being is positively related to (a) employee creativity and negatively related to (b) employee turnover intentions and absenteeism. Hypothesis 5: The best model fit for workplace wellbeing is a three-dimensional model consisting of the two dimensions of eudaimonic perspectives of workplace well-being (interpersonal and intrapersonal) and hedonic perspective of workplace well-being. Hypothesis 6: Overall workplace well-being is significantly related to key organizational constructs such as organizational citizenship behaviours and employee popularity even when controlling for trait affect.

See Original Research Study: Understanding well-being at work: Development and Validation of the Eudaimonic Workplace Well-being scale, Bartels AL, Peterson SJ, Reina CS (2019) PLoS ONE 14(4): e0215957. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0215957